Jump to content


Photo

Is it worth it?


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 Brant Collins

Brant Collins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Producer
  • Little Rock, Arkansas

Posted 21 June 2005 - 02:45 PM

I keep playing with super 8 and now need to look at investing in a good camera. Is it worth it. With HD video cameras under 5k is it worth it to try and use SUPER 8? I have found a company www.bonofilms.com that will transfer direct to drive in an uncompressed format for edit in FCP.
I do not know if my persuit of working with super 8 is a worth while venture.
  • 0

#2 John Hyde

John Hyde
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 21 June 2005 - 03:18 PM

Really, you can't beat the aesthetic quality of film once you know how to get a good picture. Much better than the hard edge, flat look of digital.

It is often difficult to get started in film without much idea of where to go for help.

I read earlier on a post that you had a camera you bought on ebay break down. I think to get yourself going I might recommend dealing with a reputable company that will provide you with good equipment and advice to get you started. This will make your experience in film less costly and more trouble free in the long run.

Super 8 is still the least expensive place to start. And, you can still get a great set-up in super 8 for a lot less than the HD system you are talking about.

So, keep trying and chalk up your mistakes to experience.
  • 0

#3 Brant Collins

Brant Collins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Producer
  • Little Rock, Arkansas

Posted 21 June 2005 - 04:08 PM

Thanks...I have a Saynkio I got on e-bay that is 24p that works(I have run film through it) What about super duper 8(widing the gate) worth it?

I got a great matte box with the camera that broke, got an adapter to fit my Canon GL-2 DV camera so it was not a total loss
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 June 2005 - 04:42 PM

Use each format for what it does. Use Super-8 for a Super-8 look. Use 24P DV for a 24P DV look. Use 24P HD for a 24P HD look. Use color reversal for a color reversal look.

There are always limits to how far you can force one format to resemble another.

If you like the Super-8 look, use Super-8. If you don't, don't use it.
  • 0

#5 Marty Hamrick

Marty Hamrick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 543 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oshawa, Ontario

Posted 27 June 2005 - 09:57 AM

Use each format for what it does. Use Super-8 for a Super-8 look. Use 24P DV for a 24P DV look. Use 24P HD for a 24P HD look. Use color reversal for a color reversal look.

There are always limits to how far you can force one format to resemble another.

If you like the Super-8 look, use Super-8. If you don't, don't use it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



I fully agree.Certain looks for music videos and insert scenes can only be done with super 8.I've experimented with it for commercials and TV news promos with super 8,16mm and all video formats from Hi 8 to DVCAM (haven't worked yet with 24PHD but I'm looking forward to that).I think I've pushed video as far as it will go to make it look like film and it's always come up short.That's why my station's promotion department is looking te resurrect an old Canon Scoopic.Been down the video road.
  • 0

#6 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 27 June 2005 - 02:23 PM

If you can find reliable Super 8 equipment you should be pleased with the progress of the format in the past several years. The new negative stocks such as Vision 2 200T are breathing new life into the format and providing a legitimate alternate medium to MOS DV and 16mm film for some shots.

But keep in mind that no one makes new Super 8 cameras and the old ones are generally about 30 years old and in need of maintenance.
  • 0

#7 Algis Kemezys

Algis Kemezys
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Montreal

Posted 27 June 2005 - 02:39 PM

I shot alot of super8 in the 60ties. In the 80ties I shot a couple of rolls to add to my videofootage.
The super8's color ,depth of field, and luminous nature made the video footage look pridictable.
  • 0

#8 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 27 June 2005 - 11:43 PM

I keep playing with super 8 and now need to look at investing in a good camera. Is it worth it. With HD video cameras under 5k is it worth it to try and use SUPER 8? I have found a company www.bonofilms.com that will transfer direct to drive in an uncompressed format for edit in FCP.
I do not know if my persuit of working with super 8 is a worth while venture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Any film or video project nowadays can have so many subtle layers to it that more important than comparing format wars quality is matching up the best format for the right project.
  • 0

#9 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 June 2005 - 06:52 AM

Hi,

I wonder if you could mount one of those miniature HD cameras on that Movietube thing...

Phil
  • 0

#10 John Hyde

John Hyde
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 03 July 2005 - 12:12 AM

I have seen Super Duper 8. The changes are very small and not worth the investment in my opinion. It really only provides a very small sliver of additional film area (even by super 8 standards). I think you should experiment with super 8 in its "normal" form. Find a good camera and film that delivers good results.

Once you have mastered super 8 in its normal form, consider shooting it in anamorphic as your next step (if you want to go further with the resolution). I have seen incredible results in squeezing the film resolution into a sigificantly smaller area on a video monitor (much better than super duper 8 or max 8).

Or, bump up to 16mm. With what you learn in obtaining good results in super 8, you should quickly adapt to 16mm with great results.
  • 0

#11 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 July 2005 - 08:40 AM

Hi,

The main difference I found between shooting s8 and s16, other than the cost, was the sheer amount of equipment. A very basic Arri SR package must have come in fifteen cases, and I was very pleased that I had splashed out on a good assistant to look after it all. Video and super-8 you can put in a shoulder bag, go out, and shoot; go to 16mm and it all becomes a much bigger deal, it's like the circus coming to town, and that has implications for how much planning it requires.

Phil
  • 0

#12 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 03 July 2005 - 10:23 AM

Hi,
A very basic Arri SR package must have come in fifteen cases, and I was very pleased that I had splashed out on a good assistant to look after it all. Video and super-8 you can put in a shoulder bag, go out, and shoot; go to 16mm and it all becomes a much bigger deal, it's like the circus coming to town, and that has implications for how much planning it requires.

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hi,

Sounds like a big budget shoot, lots of toys, video assist etc! If you ever need to work in the mountains I find everything will go in a rucksack.

Stephen Williams DP

www.stephenw.com
  • 0

#13 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 July 2005 - 10:40 AM

Hi,

Actually it was described as "deal of the century" by the camera assistant, but as I recall what we had was:

- The camera body (A badly-super-16-ised SR)
- Tall legs
- Short legs
- Hi-hat
- Fluid head
- Lenses
- More lenses
- Video assist
- Mags
- Batteries
- Charger
- Cable kit
- Mattebox and rods
- Filters

That's just what I can remember, let alone all the gear the AC brought with her. You have to wonder why they go through all that stuff with tall and short legs and a separate head - I have a Vinten ENG tripod which will do in one shoulder bag everything those three cases will do, at half the weight!

Phil
  • 0

#14 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 03 July 2005 - 11:42 AM

Hi,

Actually it was described as "deal of the century" by the camera assistant, but as I recall what we had was:

- The camera body (A badly-super-16-ised SR)
- Tall legs
- Short legs
- Hi-hat
- Fluid head
- Lenses
- More lenses
- Video assist
- Mags
- Batteries
- Charger
- Cable kit
- Mattebox and rods
- Filters

That's just what I can remember, let alone all the gear the AC brought with her. You have to wonder why they go through all that stuff with tall and short legs and a separate head - I have a Vinten ENG tripod which will do in one shoulder bag everything those three cases will do, at half the weight!

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hi,

I know what you mean! I did a shoot in Spain and the production manager was very put out that I only wanted an Arri 435, 2mags,3 Lenses, Lightweight Matt Box, 4 Filters , and hand held unit! No tripod, No Video, No Chargers!

Stephen
  • 0

#15 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 July 2005 - 12:19 PM

You could strip down a Super-16 camera package to something nearly as small as a pro video camera package. The only real difference would be the additional mags needed with Super-16, and an external zoom motor if needed. Otherwise, video monitors, follow-focus, tripods, support rods, matteboxes, etc. are all applicable to either format.

In fact, when I did a test of a rock concert in HD versus Super-16, the Super-16 camera assistant got his package up and running in half the time as the HD camera assistant -- but it wasn't really fair because it was a Panavised F900 and you know how Panavision loves to put lots of accessories on things...

There are advantages to a beefier tripod and head, although if I can afford it, I will often also rent a lightweight video tripod (whether for an F900 or for a Super-16 camera) so I can pick it up and move around quickly with it to grab shots. It's barely stable enough, but in these cases, I'm trading stability for mobility. The rental house often questions me on this: "but a Sachtler Video 20 is not sturdy enough for an F900..." but I really just want something lightweight that will stabilize the camera while I shoot quickly, grabbing shots. I did some pick-ups for "Dot" (now "The Quiet") in New Jersey and I barely used the Ronford legs and Sachtler Ultimate head I was renting and just stayed on the lightweight video Sachtler.
  • 0

#16 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 03 July 2005 - 01:25 PM

You could strip down a Super-16 camera package to something nearly as small as a pro video camera package. on the lightweight video Sachtler.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Hi,

Film was the news gathering medium for over 50 Years! David Samuelson was able to manage a 35mm Mitchell BNC on his own!

Stephen
  • 0

#17 Brant Collins

Brant Collins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Producer
  • Little Rock, Arkansas

Posted 04 July 2005 - 11:38 PM

As I am new to film I need a light meter. Is the Sekonic L-398M a good starter meter?
  • 0

#18 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 05 July 2005 - 12:06 PM

"Is the Sekonic L-398M a good starter meter?"

Yep. It's an incident light meter, not spot. You'll need to take a reading at the subject. You may need to check its calibration against a known good meter.
  • 0

#19 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 07 July 2005 - 02:42 PM

Edit on the previous post. The Sekonic L398 also has a disk for taking reflected readings in addition to the standard white globe disk used for incident readings. I've got a reflected reading disk, but haven't used it in years. Maybe I'll try it out tonite.
  • 0

#20 Marty Hamrick

Marty Hamrick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 543 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oshawa, Ontario

Posted 07 July 2005 - 03:53 PM

[quote name='David Mullen' date='Jul 3 2005, 09:19 AM']
You could strip down a Super-16 camera package to something nearly as small as a pro video camera package. The only real difference would be the additional mags needed with Super-16, and an external zoom motor if needed. Otherwise, video monitors, follow-focus, tripods, support rods, matteboxes, etc. are all applicable to either format.

David's quite right,I used to shoot news on 16mm and the CP-16 package I used to shoot with was no more or less bulky than the Betacam SX package I currently shoot news with.

I've also done commercial shoots on video that required the same amount,if not more than what you described in the SR package.
  • 0


Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

CineLab

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

CineTape

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

CineTape

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Technodolly

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Willys Widgets